The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a review petition and the requirement for examination on its own merits, as guided by the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and relevant case law.

Judgment

Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants seek to assail the order dated 10.03.2015 passed in RA No. 492 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge whereby he has reviewed the order passed in CWP No. 5859 of 2010 decided on 17.11.2012. The order was passed while deciding bunch of review petitions filed by the State of Haryana against the order dated 16.01.2013 passed in a bunch of writ petitions wherein the petitioners’ writ petition was also included.

2. For adjudication of this case, it would be apposite to note certain dates and facts which have come on record.

The appellants herein had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No. 5859 of 2010 which was allowed on 17.11.2012 in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 3686 of 2000 – Harish Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others decided on 01.03.2011 as well as Chandigarh Administration and others vs Mrs. Rajni Vali JT 2000 (1) SC 159. The Single Judge held that the facts were not disputed. It also noticed that the State Department had filed a review petition against the dismissal of the SLP in Harish Kumar’s case (supra) and that judgment had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

3. The order dated 17.11.2012 passed in CWP No. 5859 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge was challenged in LPA No. 1335 of 2013 – The Managing Committee, S. D. Senior Secondary School, Ambala Cantt. And another vs Shashi and others and LPA No. 1332 of 2013 – State of Haryana vs Shashi Sharma. Both the LPAs were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file review application vide order dated 22.04.2014. The Review Application was filed by the Managing Committee (supra) bearing RA No. 270 of 2014. The same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.05.2014 and SLP (C) No. 13504 of 2014 was filed against the review order. The said SLP was dismissed on merits by the Supreme Court on 28.09.2014.

4. Thereafter on 10.03.2015, a review application was filed by the State of Haryana bearing RA No. 492 of 2014 which was tagged along with RA No. 478 of 2014. The facts of RA No. 478 of 2014 were considered by the learned Single Judge and the same came to be allowed. The order mentions RA No. 492 of 2014 in CWP No. 5859 of 2010 and states that the same is being decided as it arises out of a common judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited attention to order passed in RA No. 492 of 2014 in CWP No. 5859 of 2010 which states that for orders, see detailed reasons recorded in a separate order passed today in RA No. 478 of 2014 in CWP No. 10166 of 2011 titled as Rajesh Dhanda and others vs State of Haryana and others. He further states that feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners therein filed SLP before the Supreme Court directly bearing SLP (C) No. 14792 of 2015 Shashi Sharma and others vs State of Haryana and others wherein on 13.05.2015 notices were issued and stay of further proceedings in CWP No. 5859 of 2010 were directed by the Supreme Court. On 22.01.2019, the said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy of Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioners were granted interim protection for four weeks till the said LPA is not filed. Thereafter, the present LPA was preferred by the appellants on 11.02.2019 and an interim protection was granted at the initial stage by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that respondent State of Haryana has wrongfully filed a review petition after the Supreme Court had decided the SLP on merits filed by the Managing Committee on 29.08.2014. Their act was also suffering from concealment as it was wrongly stated in their review application that the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5859 of 2010 was a common judgment. In fact the order under review was passed in other writ petitions as a separate judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 8314 of 2011 Sunil Parkash and another vs State of Haryana on 16.01.2013. Thus, there was no co